Read on Twitter
Okey doke artichoke. This article from the Telegraph is pure culture wars bullshit. What they are proposing is traditionally called History of Science, and is taught everywhere.
Assessment of historical figures and their views is literally part of history, and yes, Darwin held views which were typical for his time, but deserve to be aired and understood. Here& #39;s a feature I wrote on this very subject earlier this year https://bit.ly/3pQWacz ">https://bit.ly/3pQWacz&q...
The foundations of modern science are inextricably entwined with empire building and colonialism, as human taxonomy was used in service of subjugation. Linnaeus was a key figure in that classification. Here& #39;s a feature I wrote on this https://bit.ly/3txIapY ">https://bit.ly/3txIapY&q...
We contextualise the work and views of people from the past to understand them, and to assess how their work and views influence our current work and lives.
History, by definition, is always changing. It is the past, not history, that is fixed, and the job of historians is to constantly reassess it with new discoveries and new analysis in our current culture.
Nigel Biggar and the Telegraph are a one trick pony; he and they are anti-intellectual fantasists whose specious ire is ill-informed and ill-considered, and rests upon moronic soundbites and splenetic bluster. They have NOTHING to contribute to scholarship.
I even wrote an academic paper on this subject (paywalled, but contact me via my website if you want a PDF) https://bit.ly/2PfuukQ ">https://bit.ly/2PfuukQ&q...
I and others teach this at UCL, on the most popular undergraduate course at UCL. We encourage students to know their subject and its history, and to think for themselves about the difficult histories of our field. This is not radical or woke, it& #39;s history.
